Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment
  • Appeal Determined (QCA)

Attorney General v Friend[2006] QSC 131

Attorney General v Friend[2006] QSC 131

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

PARTIES:

FILE NO/S:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVERED ON:

2 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 May 2006

JUDGE:

Moynihan J

ORDER:

1.That the respondent is a serious danger to the community and that he be released from custody subject to the conditions of exhibit 3, deleting (y).

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - OTHER MATTERS – where respondent finished sentence for sexual offences- where application made under s 13 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) for a supervision order not opposed by respondent- whether respondent is a serious danger to the community in the absence of a division 3 order- whether conditions of the supervision order appropriate.

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld).

COUNSEL:

J M Horton for the applicant
R A East for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

 

[1] MOYNIHAN J:  This is an application by the Attorney-General pursuant to s 13 of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’) for a division 3 order that the respondent is a serious danger to the community and for consequential orders.  The respondent is clearly a prisoner within the meaning of the Act.[1]

 

[2] The objects of the Act are:

 

  1. “to provide for the continued detention custody or supervised release of a particular class of prisoner to ensure adequate protection of the community; and
  2. to provide continuing control, care or treatment of a particular class of prisoner to facilitate their rehabilitation”.[2]

 

[3] If, on the hearing of such an application, the court is satisfied that the prisoner is a serious danger to the community[3] the court may order that the prisoner be released from custody subject to the conditions it considers appropriate as stated in the order.[4]

 

[4] The applicant did not contend for continuing detention.  There is no issue that a supervision order should be made and the evidence justifies it.  The terms of the draft supervision order[5], paragraph (y) aside, is appropriate in the circumstances.  For these reasons there is no need to canvas it in detail.

 

[5] Paragraph (y) of the draft supervision order, exhibit 3, states that the respondent must: ‘abstain from consuming alcohol for the duration of this order’.  The duration of the order proposed is 10 years until 02 June 2016. 

 

[6] There is some evidence that there was a period of approximately 9 months in which the responded may have had a problem with alcohol use.  The evidence does not identify precisely when this occurred or its consequences, but it was a long time ago. There is no evidence that this activity contributed to the respondent’s offending behaviour.  It seems to have been a product of his circumstances at the particular time.

 

[7] Submissions have been made by counsel for the respondent to allow for moderate drinking.  To allow for the sort of drinking involved in normal social intercourse that may assist the respondent in readjusting to life in the community.  There is merit in that claim.

 

[8] Counsel for the applicant raised concerns that in the reports of independent psychiatric evaluations specific recommendations had been made to the effect that the respondent abstain from alcohol.  More generally the applicant contented that alcohol has a disinhibiting influence which is not beneficial to a person who suffers from paedophilia.  Specifically, that some of the offences occurred in the company of another sexual offender, and a disinhibiting influence on a man of “unstable sense of self, passivity and anxiety” may increase the risk of re-offending.

 

[9] The proposed order contains a number of other conditions which address those concerns.  The supervising officer has the power to issue directions designed to deal with the concerns about his use of alcohol if that was indicated, for example to submit to tests, or to undertake a program.  See conditions (k), (aa), (bb), (dd), (ee).  These conditions required the respondent to submit to random drug and alcohol tests, attend a psychiatrist and therapy or counselling sessions and to undergo medical testing.

 

[10] It is desirable that the conditions are not so onerous that they, in effect, are setting the respondent up to fail by not enabling him to engage in normal societal behaviour.

 

[11]  Bearing theses considerations in mind it is my view condition (y) can be dispensed with.

 

[12] This being the position I am satisfied the respondent is a serious danger to the community and that he be released from custody subject to the conditions of exhibit 3, deleting (y).

Footnotes

[1] S 5(6) of the Act

[2] s 3 of the Act

[3] s 13(1)-4) of the Act

[4] s 13(5)(b) of the Act

[5] Exhibit 3

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Attorney General for the State of Queensland v Friend

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Attorney General v Friend

  • MNC:

    [2006] QSC 131

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Moynihan J

  • Date:

    02 Jun 2006

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary Judgment[2006] QSC 13102 Jun 2006Application pursuant to s 13 of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) for an order declaring that the offender is a serious danger to the community; whether offender required to abstain from consuming alcohol for duration of supervision order; abstinence not required: Moynihan J
Primary Judgment[2008] QSC 2727 Feb 2008Application pursuant to s 22 of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld); where offender contravened supervision order; continuing detention order imposed: Skoien AJ
Primary Judgment[2009] QSC 13502 Jun 2009Periodic review of continuing detention order pursuant to s 27 of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld); continuing detention order affirmed: Daubney J
Primary Judgment[2010] QSC 40801 Nov 2010Periodic review of continuing detention order pursuant to s 27 of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld); supervision order imposed: Mullins J
Primary Judgment[2011] QSC 22524 Jun 2011Where offender appeared pursuant to a warrant issued under s 20 of Dangerous Prisoners Sexual Offenders Act 2003 (Qld) for breach of a supervision order; application for adjournment to obtain further psychiatric reports; application refused: Fryberg J
Primary Judgment[2011] QSC 22624 Jun 2011Where offender held under warrant pursuant to s 20 of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003; whether to impose continuing detention order; offender released subject to continuing supervision order: Fryberg J
Primary Judgment[2012] QSC 10827 Apr 2012Application pursuant to s 21(4) of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 that he be released from custody pending hearing of an alleged contravention of supervision order imposed by Mullins J on 1 November 2010; application dismissed: Martin J
QCA Interlocutory Judgment[2011] QCA 29420 Oct 2011Application for a stay of orders made by Mullins J on 30 September 2011 granted: White JA
Appeal Determined (QCA)[2011] QCA 35709 Dec 2011Appeal against order of Mullins J ([2010] QSC 408) that offender be released from custody subject to continuing supervision order: White JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Douglas J

Appeal Status

Appeal Determined (QCA)

Cases Cited

No judgments cited by this judgment.

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Attorney-General v Friend [2008] QSC 271 citation
Attorney-General v Friend [2010] QSC 4081 citation
Attorney-General v Friend [2011] QCA 3572 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.